Sampras's sublime volleys against Fed [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras's sublime volleys against Fed

wimbledonfan
09-16-2006, 11:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egiqkoWqlGI

Watch this clip and tell me what you think .

Can it still survive in todays game ?

GlennMirnyi
09-16-2006, 11:18 PM
An intelligent post. ATP ruined tennis and made moonballers top players.

Pfloyd
09-16-2006, 11:23 PM
I happen to think that a baseliner is more fun to watch. But I also think that there should be at least 2 or 3 volleyers in the top 20, to make the game a bit more varied.

PamV
09-16-2006, 11:27 PM
I happen to think that a baseliner is more fun to watch. But I also think that there should be at least 2 or 3 volleyers in the top 20, to make the game a bit more varied.

It's more fun to watch variety. For me the all baseline game is very monotonous.

stebs
09-16-2006, 11:29 PM
It's more fun to watch variety. For me the all baseline game is very monotonous.
Variety is great to watch but back when it was all serve volley it was just as, if not more, monotonous than it is now.

neenah
09-17-2006, 12:15 AM
Variety is great to watch but back when it was all serve volley it was just as, if not more, monotonous than it is now.

I agree, too much of either can be a bit monotonous, I love a player who can play well either way!

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 12:51 AM
Variety is great to watch but back when it was all serve volley it was just as, if not more, monotonous than it is now.

That's your opinion. I find our times, the baseline-times, extremely boring and that only shows how today's players are technically weak.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egiqkoWqlGI

Watch this clip and tell me what you think .

Can it still survive in todays game ?
Nice to see little Roger challenging the Wimbledon Defending Champion in 2001...
He did well to retire in 2002, considering he went two years without a title from Wimbledon 2000 until Usopen 2002, no way he would have survived a toe to toe battle against Federer post Wimbledon 2003.

Lee
09-17-2006, 01:36 AM
Variety is great to watch but back when it was all serve volley it was just as, if not more, monotonous than it is now.

But at that time, you will have S&V in Wimbledon, baseline exchanges in Roland Garros and a mix in Australia Open and US Open.

Now, every tournaments, you have only exchanges between baselines. :shrug:

World Beater
09-17-2006, 01:38 AM
roger actually made better volleys and more spectacular ones in this match than sampy...

if you really want to show pete's great volleying skills, you should pick a diff match because by believing that pete volleyed great in this match, you actually contradicting the frequent excuse of sampras tards , "that he wasnt in his prime"...

but then again i saw pete hit some 136 mph bombs, maybe he actually played well and lost to 18 year old rookie.

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:40 AM
World Beater , lets try to be impartial here .

I know you're a big Fed fan , but lets face it , Fed doesn't volley as well as Pete .

In fact in the last 3 years of his dominance , i've yet to see Federer hit his volleys as effortlessly as the ones Pete made on the last two of this clip .

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 01:43 AM
But at that time, you will have S&V in Wimbledon, baseline exchanges in Roland Garros and a mix in Australia Open and US Open.

Now, every tournaments, you have only exchanges between baselines. :shrug:

Perfect. :worship:

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:43 AM
By the way , I think Fed and Pete played fairly well .

This isn't about who is the better player is , it's about the lost art of serving and volleying .

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 01:43 AM
World Beater , lets try to be impartial here .

I know you're a big Fed fan , but lets face it , Fed doesn't volley as well as Pete .

In fact in the last 3 years of his dominance , i've yet to see Federer hit his volleys as effortlessly as the ones Pete made on the last two of this clip .

Also true. :worship:

World Beater
09-17-2006, 01:44 AM
World Beater , lets try to be impartial here .

I know you're a big Fed fan , but lets face it , Fed doesn't volley as well as Pete .

In fact in the last 3 years of his dominance , i've yet to see Federer hit his volleys as effortlessly as the ones Pete made on the last two of this clip .

i never said pete wasnt a better volleyer, did I?

i acknowledge it...i think pete was a much more consistent volleyer than fed.

you should watch the whole match, roger made better volleys.

how about the most crucial one, on bp down in the fifth set. pete rifled a backhand straight at roger after a letcord from federer, lost that point and the match.

all im saying is that there are better matches to pick...the volleys pete made are the same ones i see executed by guys like mirnyi and bjorkman day-in day out...its nothing spectacular...

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:46 AM
World Beater , lets try to be impartial here .

I know you're a big Fed fan , but lets face it , Fed doesn't volley as well as Pete .

In fact in the last 3 years of his dominance , i've yet to see Federer hit his volleys as effortlessly as the ones Pete made on the last two of this clip .
I agree that Sampras serves and volleys better than Federer, but the difference is minimal, whereareas Federer backcourt game is WAY better than Pete off the forehand and off the backhand.

jole
09-17-2006, 01:47 AM
I also agree that Federer is not the server and volleyer that Sampras is, but it really isn't a huge issue. He still volleys insanely well, holds a hell of a lot of service games without even having to rely on pure power, and he has the best ground game except on the dirt. The thing is Federer can improve on clay, and while Nadal can get better as well I don't think he has as much unachieved talent in terms of pure groundstroking on clay.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:48 AM
World Beater , lets try to be impartial here .

I know you're a big Fed fan , but lets face it , Fed doesn't volley as well as Pete .

In fact in the last 3 years of his dominance , i've yet to see Federer hit his volleys as effortlessly as the ones Pete made on the last two of this clip .
Actually the volley is one of the greatest improvements of Federer lately, he normally made more errors at the net, but then again just watch him volley against Nadal on clay in Rome especially that was :worship:, lets not even remmember how dumb Sampras looked at net on clay :rolleyes:

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:49 AM
I don't know about that .

Fed has a better game off the ground , but Pete had some shots that Fed doesn't hit as well . For instance , the overhead smash , the running forehand and the backhand down the line . Federer , on the other hand , has a wicked crosscourt forehand shot .

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:52 AM
I don't know about that .

Fed has a better game off the ground , but Pete had some shots that Fed doesn't hit as well . For instance , the overhead smash , the running forehand and the backhand down the line . Federer , on the other hand , has a wicked crosscourt forehand shot .
Sampras backhand down the line? that is laughable. That was in fact Peteīs most attackable side, his backhand.
And sorry Federerīs forehand has NOTHING to envy from Samprasīs. I think Federerīs is better, because it works well on every surface. While Peteīs forehand on clay :help:

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:54 AM
This thread is about why none of the players serve and volley anymore .

I think it's difficult to do well , but it makes for great tennis when you see contrasting styles at work .

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:55 AM
As side note , Pete did have the better running forehand shot .

World Beater
09-17-2006, 01:55 AM
Sampras backhand down the line? that is laughable. That was in fact Peteīs most attackable side, his backhand.
And sorry Federerīs forehand has NOTHING to envy from Samprasīs. I think Federerīs is better, because it works well on every surface. While Peteīs forehand on clay :help:

according to him, pete had the best bh dtl ever... :D

the overhead smash....omg

every player has that

:haha:....man how did you not make the arseclown tournament

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:56 AM
I don't know about that .

Fed has a better game off the ground , but Pete had some shots that Fed doesn't hit as well . For instance , the overhead smash , the running forehand and the backhand down the line . Federer , on the other hand , has a wicked crosscourt forehand shot .
Plus there is nothing wrong with Federer not being able to hit the overhead SKYJUMP? like Pete did, Federer has a great overhead, rarely misses when he is about to hit an overhead as well.
Federer right now is so complete that he is even constructing the points from his backhand, whereareas Pete mostly would defend from there, or at least would not hurt as much as Federer does with his backhand.

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 01:58 AM
I'm a huge Fed and Pete fan btw .

I appreciate the differences in their game and do acknowledge that Federer has a more consistent game off the ground . At the same time , I feel that Federers volleys are not as close as effective as Petes .

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 01:59 AM
As side note , Pete did have the better running forehand shot .
As a side note Federerīs forehand on the run has nothing to envy from Pete as i said, in fact Federer has more options, he can flick the wrist and hit a sharp angled forehand which is a killer as well. Has more topspin on his shot, which makes it more secure, and also he hits it quite hard too.
Sampras normally would hit an amazing forehand DTL on the stretch.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 02:02 AM
I'm a huge Fed and Pete fan btw .

I appreciate the differences in their game and do acknowledge that Federer has a more consistent game off the ground . At the same time , I feel that Federers volleys are not as close as effective as Petes .
You are a Sampras fan, and when you fail to see that off the ground the difference between Federer and Sampras is bigger than the difference when they are at the net, it only says it all.

For instance Sampras could dominate (not by much though) Agassi mainly with his big serve, and his net play, whereareas Federer could go toe to toe with Agassi from the back of the court, see some 2003 and 2004 matches for instace.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 02:04 AM
according to him, pete had the best bh dtl ever... :D

the overhead smash....omg

every player has that

:haha:....man how did you not make the arseclown tournament
Peteīs trademark shot is not exactly his backhand DTL, that is just a ridiculous assumption from you :lol:
Sampras greatest assets were his Serve, Forehand and Volley.

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 02:05 AM
Spencercarlos and Worldbeater

I assume you're not a tennis fan but rather a Federer fan ?

Is that fair assumption ?

Howecome , I'm a fan of both players and yet two are only Federer fans ?

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 02:07 AM
Spencorcarlos and Worldbeater

I assume you're not a tennis fan but rather a Federer fan ?

Is that fair assumption ?

Howecome , I'm a fan of both players and yet you two are only Federer fans ?
Itīs minimal. But then again off the ground Federerīs game is better, and his clay court resume says it all, and he can still get more.
Or the Schallers, Delgados and Brugeras of then are better competition on clay than today's? :lol:

Ays25
09-17-2006, 02:14 AM
What are we discussung here?
Sampras was of course a better player than federer.. He had super quality opposition.. at least 10-15 top tennis players of all time.. federer has ljubicic as no 3 davy as no 4.. lol

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 02:18 AM
What are we discussung here?
Sampras was of course a better player than federer.. He had super quality opposition.. at least 10-15 top tennis players of all time.. federer has ljubicic as no 3 davy as no 4.. lol
Yeah old Becker, old Edberg, mentally out Courier, Pioline, Thomas i love clay Muster, mentally injured Ivanisevic and unfocused Andre Agassi where his main opossition. Sure these players today would be number one :lol:

Too bad that after Wimbledon 2000 and 2002 Sampras was having all kinds of troubles against the Hewits Roddicks and Haas of then :lol:

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 02:21 AM
Itīs minimal. But then again off the ground Federerīs game is better, and his clay court resume says it all, and he can still get more.
Or the Schallers, Delgados and Brugeras of then are better competition on clay than today's? :lol:

Claycourters in the 90's and beginning of the 2000's were waaaay better than they are right now.





To the guy that Sampras played based on power, that's :bs:! Sampras was all about placement and precision.

World Beater
09-17-2006, 02:21 AM
:haha:

i admire what pete did..he was the best clutch player i have ever seen.

but to say pete had the best bh dtl or bh anything else reeks of ignorance..

im a fan of federer's tennis and of those who play with flair, aggression and make it exciting to watch.

it would nice if a guy who played the style of pete were still around...

i feel henman could have fulfilled this role if he had a better serve.

wimbledonfan
09-17-2006, 02:22 AM
Carlos , lets be nice here .

Federer and Pete are awesome players . There is no need to put either player down .

World Beater
09-17-2006, 02:23 AM
Yeah old Becker, old Edberg, mentally out Courier, Pioline, Thomas i love clay Muster, mentally injured Ivanisevic and unfocused Andre Agassi where his main opossition. Sure these players today would be number one :lol:

Too bad that after Wimbledon 2000 and 2002 Sampras was having all kinds of troubles against the Hewits Roddicks and Haas of then :lol:


muster beat sampy indoors...let see them defend that one...these same people complain about how nadal "the rookie" beats fed on an outdoor hc.

btw i think pete was one of the best indoor players of all time, way better than federer

World Beater
09-17-2006, 02:27 AM
What are we discussung here?
Sampras was of course a better player than federer.. He had super quality opposition.. at least 10-15 top tennis players of all time.. federer has ljubicic as no 3 davy as no 4.. lol

yeah...todd martin, cedric pioline,

do some research and see how many times pete actually faced these so-called greats(becker, edberg etc) in slam finals.

the only one who had some duels with him was agassi...and how many gs finals did they contest? not that many if i recall...4?

Ays25
09-17-2006, 02:30 AM
muster beat sampy indoors...let see them defend that one...these same people complain about how nadal "the rookie" beats fed on an outdoor hc.

btw i think pete was one of the best indoor players of all time, way better than federer
muster was a great hardcourt player.. before and after his injury..
i said it before i say it again if federer played between 90-2000 he wouldnt be in the top 10

World Beater
09-17-2006, 02:33 AM
muster was a great hardcourt player.. before and after his injury..
i said it before i say it again if federer played between 90-2000 he wouldnt be in the top 10

this from a guy who thinks agassi is the best player of all time...:retard:

take sampras competition towards the end of his career and see federer's record against them.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 02:37 AM
yeah...todd martin, cedric pioline,

do some research and see how many times pete actually faced these so-called greats(becker, edberg etc) in slam finals.

the only one who had some duels with him was agassi...and how many gs finals did they contest? not that many if i recall...4?
Muster won only 2 Super nine titles not being on clay (3 non clay titles overall), and Muster was not a factor on the hardcourt grand slams except the Australian Open 1997 where he reached semis. He actually improved his hard court game in 1997 and his clay court game went sink. :lol:
By the way Pete faced Edberg in 92 Usopen final and lost, last slam final for Edberg 93 Australian Open (beat Pete in the semis too), that was his last shot at a slam title.
Becker had quite a nice ressurection from the mid of 1995 til the start of 1996, but that was it, then dissapeared, losing early at slams, injuries, retirement and so on.

lordmanji
09-17-2006, 04:53 AM
ugh why dont u guys just start comparing mcenroe to sampras and mcenroe to federer while you're at it. the game evolves. federer himself said he looked up to pete when he was young and it shows in his service motion, the same placement of the ball that could be directed anywhere, and the panther like movement around the court. federer watching pete cut down alot of the figuring out he wouldve had to do by himself otherwise and so he had time to improve on other aspects, that is backhand and forehand as well as improve upon what he learned from pete.

lordmanji
09-17-2006, 04:59 AM
oh yes and i had the fortune of watching a sampras vs becker indoor match i think from 96? five sets and boring as hell. the points, thanks to petes serve and volley and the fast indoor hardcourt, were all short and anticlimatic. im much a fan of baseline rallies because points are constructed. the point can end a variety of ways with a baseline slugfest, a winner, a ue, or end on two strokes like s and v tennis. then there's the relative ease in technique in volleys which are pong like - stick your racket out and direct it somewhere. moreover, even in the most ardent of baseline matches there always will be a few net points snuck in. even roddick tries to volley now and whats more entertaining than watching a baseliner break rhythm and do that?

DrJules
09-17-2006, 07:19 AM
By the way , I think Fed and Pete played fairly well .

This isn't about who is the better player is , it's about the lost art of serving and volleying .

If court speed increased there would not be serve and volley. You would just have serves.

The only way that serve and volley would re-emerge would be on courts with lots of bad bounces and players trying to avoid letting the ball bounce.